are ca's really that unreliable?

kieran_e1 said:
sr's were built on the cheap and mass produced from a cost perspective. thats why they have an inferior head design and an alloy block. Having had one ca and one sr with identical turbo's and almost identical setups run back to back on the same rolllers i'd disagree tbh
Click to expand...

Im sorry Kieran, but that's just complete rubbish mate. You have no proof or evidence to back that up, it's simply your opinion and based in internet fantasy rather than fact. CA18DET is one of the last revisions of a series of engines that was designed in the late 1970’s and early CA versions were available from 1981. The CA18DET was cancelled in 1991 due to it being disproportionately expensive to produce and continuing issues with long term reliability. While the engine design was very good the component material specifications were extremely poor.

After production of the CA18 and CA16 ceased in 1991 they were replaced by the SR20DET and the GA16DE respectively. The first variant of the SR20DET (what we know as the redtop) was used in the 180sx and had a much better port design than the later SR. It used the same T25 turbo that was used on the CA along with the same 8.5:1 compression ratio. It immediately produced better power 151kW vs 124 kW of the CA18DET . The second variant of the engine is what we get in the UK and JDM S14’s. While the head design was not as good the power was up from 151kW to 166kw due to a larger T28 turbo charger.

The ultimate version of the SR is undoubtedly the N14 engine (that came in the GTIR Pulsar) it has a superior port design, larger turbo, solid lifters and a beefier conrod design. It produces 187kw from stock.

While the CA has a good port design, that’s about the extent of its advantages as an engine. It’s very old technology, expensive to produce, flawed and built with substandard internal materials. Stock internals are on the limit at 220kW (300hp) where as the standard V1 and V2 SR20’s are good for 300kW (400hp)

£ for £ it’s far more expensive to get a CA18DET engine to 350hp than it is with an SR20 and CA18’s are proven to be extremely unreliable both on the road and track.

CA18’s are not as good as SR20’s. This is factual.

If you throw £5k at a CA and £5k at an SR you’re going to end up with a higher spec SR, but they will ultimately produce similar power and reliability.
 
Mr Bizzle said:
Im sorry Kieran, but that's just complete rubbish mate. You have no proof or evidence to back that up, it's simply your opinion and based in internet fantasy rather than fact. CA18DET is one of the last revisions of a series of engines that was designed in the late 1970s and early CA versions were available from 1981. The CA18DET was cancelled in 1991 due to it being disproportionately expensive to produce and continuing issues with long term reliability. While the engine design was very good the component material specifications were extremely poor.

After production of the CA18 and CA16 ceased in 1991 they were replaced by the SR20DET and the GA16DE respectively. The first variant of the SR20DET (what we know as the redtop) was used in the 180sx and had a much better port design than the later SR. It used the same T25 turbo that was used on the CA along with the same 8.5:1 compression ratio. It immediately produced better power 151kW vs 124 kW of the CA18DET . The second variant of the engine is what we get in the UK and JDM S14s. While the head design was not as good the power was up from 151kW to 166kw due to a larger T28 turbo charger.

The ultimate version of the SR is undoubtedly the N14 engine (that came in the GTIR Pulsar) it has a superior port design, larger turbo, solid lifters and a beefier conrod design. It produces 187kw from stock.

While the CA has a good port design, thats about the extent of its advantages as an engine. Its very old technology, expensive to produce, flawed and built with substandard internal materials. Stock internals are on the limit at 220kW (300hp) where as the standard V1 and V2 SR20s are good for 300kW (400hp)

£ for £ its far more expensive to get a CA18DET engine to 350hp than it is with an SR20 and CA18s are proven to be extremely unreliable both on the road and track.

CA18s are not as good as SR20s. This is factual.

If you throw £5k at a CA and £5k at an SR youre going to end up with a higher spec SR, but they will ultimately produce similar power and reliability.
Click to expand...

by evidence yo obviously mean the wikipedia cut and paste job you've just done which confirm's two of the point's i made. The ca had a better head design and the sr was cheaper to make. If you look further back in the thread i do agree with the pound for pound argument hence why i'm. Running an sr next season again with a 2.2 lit.
 
kieran_e1 said:
by evidence yo obviously mean the wikipedia cut and paste job you've just done which confirm's two of the point's i made. The ca had a better head design and the sr was cheaper to make. If you look further back in the thread i do agree with the pound for pound argument hence why i'm. Running an sr next season again with a 2.2 lit.
Click to expand...

I didn't cut and paste from wikipedia, but i did use it as a ref for power figures of course. (my brain isn't so good with remembering lots of figures!)

Your previous post made it sound like the SR was "cheap" ie: badly designed and mass produced so that's the reason behind it having an alloy block and different head design.

If that wasn't the case then i appologise.
:thumbs:
 
CA's are awesome, fact!!!

And they sound awesome too.

SR's sound like a Sack'a' hacky tatties!!
SR's last longet because thev'e done 70,000 less miles.

CA's are simple effective engines that are easy to work with and don't have over complicated unnecassary parts, just goodness.

Buy some shells, sorted.

People who slag them off generally have no mechanical knowledge and have no justification for slagging them off apart from 'thats what the cool kids do'.
 
Dragon Force said:
SR's last longet because thev'e done 70,000 less miles.
Click to expand...


not allways true, i had a s14a running stage 3 at 1.5 bar as a daily it had 135k on the clock and was on its original engine just with a uprated head gasket and that thing never caused any issues it used to get a good toasting every day once it was fully warm.
 
To be fair, nobody has really given any real tech reasons why a tuned CA or SR is better, so this thread is all opinion and no fact, like most "tech" posts on here, no matter how much people want to shout.

Only real fact is most stock CAs are shagged by now so die real easy.

I dont know either way whats best in a fair fight, but the well trodden/proven path and extra capacity of the SR makes it more hastle free for the average person to build a decent engine.
 
Well my built CA runs 1.6 bar 390bhp (low boost Safe rich map retarded timing) all day never had any issues with it this year it runs 450 at 1.9bar and when i map it will turn up to 2.2 bar. But its not realy a CA any more as all the bits are after market except the crank and block.

Most CA's the damage has already been done so no matter how many oil changes you do it wont fix it;)
The CA is perficly fine IF you get a good one same with any engine really.

Only fair way would be get 2 newly built std engines and rag the ass of them back to back.
The SR does benifit from larger capacity tho.
 
Suprash said:
I guess you never looked after the matt black one you sold me then ;), because 2 months later it bore washed the piston rings to death, and that wasnt even drifting it, daily driving it 50 miles each way to work........:thumbs:

But to the poster, I dont think I know anyone that has had a CA and it not let go on them......

They are like chocolate though, cheap, but you can eat them over and over until you realise you are sick :D
Click to expand...

ouch dude. i had only owned that car for a couple months and it was fine when i had it.

How did it bore wash itself on standard injectors ?????
 
The only mechnical point I can add to this is that the CA does indeed have a bad crank design, generally at high RPM's you end up with crank walk (end float) which shags the bearings.

Personally though, I've had the same CA for about 5 years now, It had 110k initially and I've probably done about 5k miles in it all of which have been drift. Its standard internals and HG (previous owner swapped the big ends). Its done me two seasons of BDC and lots of practicing, and it has been very reliable at 19psi, if underpowered now for my needs. Only problem with it has been plugs (swapped for a good set half way though last year, no problems since) and a killed coilpack. The head is a bit worn now though, and it fills the catch tank after about 10-15 3rd gear drifts. Other than that, its been fine. I put it down to care and attention, keeping en eye on temperatures and using good oil. At the end of the day though it is an old engine. I'd say on balance, the SR is the better design, but its hard to compare engines of very different aged designs and capacities.

tl;dr - look after your CA and it will look after you.
 
Dragon Force said:
CA's are awesome, fact!!!

And they sound awesome too.

SR's sound like a Sack'a' hacky tatties!!
SR's last longet because thev'e done 70,000 less miles.

CA's are simple effective engines that are easy to work with and don't have over complicated unnecassary parts, just goodness.

Buy some shells, sorted.

People who slag them off generally have no mechanical knowledge and have no justification for slagging them off apart from 'thats what the cool kids do'.
Click to expand...

You know me, Im full of coolness......but you're chocolate engine is still shat.........what happened to yours lol :D Did it last ?
 
suprmek1 said:
Well my built CA runs 1.6 bar 390bhp (low boost Safe rich map retarded timing) all day never had any issues with it this year it runs 450 at 1.9bar and when i map it will turn up to 2.2 bar. But its not realy a CA any more as all the bits are after market except the crank and block.

Most CA's the damage has already been done so no matter how many oil changes you do it wont fix it;)
The CA is perficly fine IF you get a good one same with any engine really.

Only fair way would be get 2 newly built std engines and rag the ass of them back to back.
The SR does benifit from larger capacity tho.
Click to expand...


your crank is gonna go clean through your block now :smash::dw:
 
well so far i gathered that its a decent engine but purely due to the fact that theyre getting on 20 years old now and have probably been ragged by the last 3 owners at least' theyre going to be a bit rubbish

and after some rumaging round this forum (and others) ive found quite a few instances of the rb and sr being just as rubbish as well :euge:

so for my next question what are the usual things to look out for in them trouble wise? or is it just the usual check for rattles, clangs and things that are leaking?

cheers:dw:
 
SR20 has a fully counter weighted crank, imho that makes it far better to start with before you even go into anything else.

The CA cranks are rubbish, if you put a proper crank in them they work good.. but then your not talking about a stock CA your talking aboiut a built engine..

They knock bearings out not because they are high mileage and they are worn, its because the cranks have nasty frequences that wipe the bearings.. my 23,000mile 200sx with CA was loved to death, never raped or bashed, when i got it it had the freshest engine oil you've ever seen in it (we are talking back in 2000 here ;)) so the car was only 8-9 years old, low mileage and well looked after..

I drove it around normal serviced it with mobile one oil every 1-2k miles, and the bearings failed.. i was totally gutted as a i too used to love the CA but then i got an SR and realised that the CA was outdated compared to the SR.

The SR head design is actually brilliant but you guys only look at it from a performance perspective nothing more, i've NEVER broke a rocker in a SR20 ever. Even in my 400bhp SR20.

They break beceause people think they can rev to 9k without mods.. that is the reason.

Ages has nothing to do with this argument, when i started playing with RS13 back in the day everyone moaned about it then too, its not a new thing that has came about on age.

The Redtop SR20 is the proper SR20 in my mind, i dislike the VVT engine.
 
CA18DET crank CHEAP

100_0129.jpg


SR20DET Crank EXPENSIVE Fully couter balanced

crank2.jpg
 
are the redtops the ones in the s13s and pulsars? take it if you got the pulsar one youd need to throw away everything and source g-box loom inlet etc etc to fit it to a s13??
 
There is alot of luck in anything mechanical or electrical.. My CA lasted four years before any real issues. In the last six months i've replaced the head and bigends. I've been running 320hp and 1.4 bar of boost for a long time on standard internals, only extra is a metal head gasket.:)
 
These threads bore me, the same old people appear to slag off the CA . But anyway, my 2p.....:D

No, CAs arent necessarily unreliable, A fresh engine will last, if its worn it wont. If you tune it, look after it
No, they wont make the same power as an SR, 1.8 vs 2.0 is a factor.
Yes, they are more expensive to get decent power from on a stock engine, 330bhp reliably on a CA with very good mapping, although a lot more has been done in the UK and Europe. Change the pistons and HG and the engine is good for around 370bhp. An SR will do that on a stock engine, maybe with a MHG for safety
No, they arent more expensive to get BIG power from than an SR, if you are changing everything anyway it all costs about the same.

CAs have their problems. So do SRs. Clarkey may have never thrown a rocker but it happens. Bladey, Mr Doricar and chap at JAE this year have snapped SR rockers. Other poor condition SRs have blocked oil spray bars for cams, which fucks the cams and chucks metal filings into the oil, which fucks the crank bearings. And then of course theres the notorious VVT rattle problem which is a £500 fix if you buy from Nissan. Its all sunshine and rainbows with an SR.;)

Oh, Chris, redtop SRs dont run the same turbo as CAs as standard.

Clarkey, whos engine lasted this season, mine or yours?;):p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top